Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Chronology - was uncancellable meaning in hebrew verbs

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Chronology - was uncancellable meaning in hebrew verbs
  • Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:39:58 +0200

Dear James,

The subject is clearly relevant for BH; so it can be discussed on this list.

We may start with the exile in Babylon. Daniel and the Chronicler say that Jerusalem was a desolate waste for a full 70 years, but this does not fit the Neo-Babylonian chronology. We should keep in mind that this chronology was fixed long before a single cuneiform tablet was unearthed - on the basis of the belief that the king list of the 2nd century astronomer Claudius Ptolemy was correct.

In 1915 two German scholars (Neugebauer/Weidner) published an analysis of the astronomical Diary VAT 4956, which has more than 30 positions of the moon and some planets in relation to particular stars. The tablet mentions year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. This analysis showed that most of the positions fitted the year 568/67, and that was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II according to the chronology of Ptolemy.

Before this, in 1892, another German scholar (Strassmaier) published the tablet Strm Kambys 400, which also has many astronomical positions, and which mentions year 7 of Cambyses, which according to Ptolemy would be 523/22. Comparing these two tablets with the Bible indicates that at least one of the three sources give wrong information. The tablets allow for only about 50 years for the exile, while the Bible has 70. The usual way to proceed has been, 1) either to reject the witness of the Bible, or 2) to try to reinterpret the texts of the Bible.

I approached the issue from a different angle. I made a careful analysis of the passages in the Bible, and found that they, linguistically speaking, were perfectly clear, and no one would have tried to give them an alternative interpretation if the person did not have a particular agenda. Then I started to look at the Babylonian evidence with fresh eyes. The very backbone of the Neo-Babylonian chronology is VAT 4956. Interestingly no one has published a new analysis of it since 1915 (Sachs/Hunger published an English translation and transliteration in 1988, but no analysis). I made digital photographs of this tablet in Berlin, and analyzed it sign for sign (about 600) from a philological, linguistic and astronomical point of view (87 pages with this analysis is found in one of my books). My conclusion is that the positions of the moon better fit the year 588/87 than 568/67, and that would fit the 70-year chronology.

I have also visited the British Museum and read dated business tablets. And the dates of about 90 such tablets argues in favor of the view that the Neo-Babylonian Empire lasted longer than most scholars today believe. In one chapter I also discuss twelve persons that may have been kings in the Neo-Babylonian Empire, but are not mentioned by Ptolemy (the evidence for this is by no means conclusive, but should be considered). My conclusion, therefore, is that the cuneiform evidence does not definitely contradict a 70-year exile when Jerusalem was a desolate waste. But it is possible to interpret it in a way that conforms with Daniel and the Chronicler.

Then to Assyria. As a matter of fact, the royal inscriptions of Assyria exaggerates the victories of the kings and by and large are propaganda. The books of kings on the other hand have a completely different quality. The kings of Judah down to Sidkia can be followed, and their years of reign are mentioned. The chronology of Judah is between 30 and 40 years longer than the chronology of Assyria, and the two chronologies cannot be conformed. And as usual when sources differ, the Bible is the looser; the Assyrian chronology is accepted and the Biblical chronology is rejected. When I made a thorough study of the situation, I found something that even makes the situation ridiculous and laughable: The Assyrian chronology hinges on the interpretation of one single datum! Only astronomical information connected with a particular year of a particular king or official can be used to make an absolute chronology. Only once is such information available for Assyria; a solar eclipse is reported in the limmu (his one year as official) of Bur Sagale. This is viewed to be the solar eclipse of 15 June 763 B.C.E. However, there are at least 8 other solar eclipses that can fit the data. So, the Neo-Assyrian chronology has a very weak foundation, but most people are not aware of that.

This was a sketch, and there are hundreds of other interesting details that can be used to question the traditional chronology.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


Hi Rolf,

That sounds interesting. Lately I've been interested in calendars and chronology. Can you summarise what you've found in a short email? It might make for an interesting discussion.

James Christian






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page